On Mon, 2006-04-24 at 21:42 +0200, Tom Bachmann wrote: > > We need to avoid words like "blocked" in this discussion, because that > > is what is causing the confusion. > > you used it (``1. Incoming messages on any valid, unblocked FCRB.''), i > just quoted you.
Yes. Excuse me. I should have written "FCRB marked 'available'" > > > First, let me repeat the steps for > > reference: > > > >> 1. C has invoked some FCRB->M, passing some RFCRB->C > >> 2. C yields the CPU > >> 3. M has been activated by arrival of C's message > >> 4. M has invoked some FCRB->S, passing some RCFRB->M > >> 5. M yields the CPU > >> 6. S has been activated by arrival of M's message > >> ?. S *may* eventually invoke RFCRB->M, but cannot be > >> sure. This is the ``problem.'' > > > > To answer your question, it isn't important whether FCRB->M is available > > after step 5. This depends on whether M wishes to be multi-threaded. > > multithreaded in what sense? the continuation style of programming? In any sense that the application wishes. In a scheduler activation system, the difference between continuations and activations is a matter of implementation choice. shap _______________________________________________ L4-hurd mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/l4-hurd
